08 February 2010

Now, I hate Brown as much as the next man, but the simple fact is all parties were hurt by the expenses scandal, and while I don't support the wall of silence from the leaders on this, it's simply bizarre to take pot-shots at the enemy when they are all guilty

Clegg is right - Cameron, who hasn't got a reforming bone in his body, is simply being an opportunist - he knows that no reform is needed, so he offers it to appear like some sort of white knight

I do agree that Labour should be withdrawing the whip and any party lawyers, but that's by-the-by, Cameron is simply re-enforcing the myth that parliamentary privilege could protect these crooks

This issue came up during the expenses saga itself - it didn't apply to reviewing accounts, so why on earth would it apply to criminal proceedings under the Theft Act? Some in the media were just stirring the pot back then, but for these pollies to actually think it will protect them serves no-one but the lawyers who are making a fastbuck from trying this route, all it's doing is telling people is politicians are protected

Can't really blame them, as Morley and co. are basically saying Parliamentary privilege protects them from criminal proceedings - therefore they could be trying this route as a defence for murder, anyone with a shred of legal knowledge will tell you it won't stand up

Me:

That's Proper Liberalism

About me

Tarquin is a lazy, good-for-nothing, would-be historian who gets easily distracted by idiocy, hypocrisy (particularly of politicians) and football.

The name Tarquin comes from a couple of late Roman kings, and also from a Monty Python sketch, and possibly from some hippies I annoyed several years ago. Peter Hitchens has a problem with my name for some reason, the only reasoning for this seems to be that he thinks it's not a real name...which I'm pretty sure it is, although I'm open to being proven wrong.

Favourite hobbies include: eating, reading, shouting at the TV, watching football and pontificating.